C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time

Scott R. Burson, Jerry L. Walls

Feb 19, 1999

Series: Volume 2 - 1999

Burson, Scott R. and Jerry L. Walls. C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1998. 308 pages

Last
year, many evangelical Christians celebrated the birth centenary of
C.S. Lewis, the most influential Christian apologist of our times. Last
year also marked the 30th anniversary of the book The God Who is There
by Francis A. Schaeffer. Schaeffer's book of apologetics and social
criticism sparked many evangelicals to leave their cultural ghettos, to
reject their anti-intellectualism and to leave their theological
oblivion behind them to communicate the cogency of the Christian
worldview to a needy world. InterVarsity Press recently released a new
edition that includes laudatory comments from evangelical luminaries
such Charles Colson, Os Guinness, J.I. Packer and Bishop John W. Howe
of Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida.

Lewis and Schaeffer
had much in common as well as many points of divergence, both in their
manner of life and their perspectives; and we have much to learn from
both, as the book C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer aptly documents.

Though
seminary-trained and possessing a keen mind, Schaeffer was not a
practicing academic and never claimed to be one (despite sometimes
being billed as such). He was a pastor with special gifts in evangelism
that in the 1950s and '60s flowered into apologetics as he talked with
alienated youth from around the world who congregated to his retreat
center in the Swiss Alps called L'Abri.

His many books
appeared late in his career, almost as an afterthought as a wise way to
put the ideas into the hands of a wider audience. Schaeffer's works are
peppered with arresting personal anecdotes (usually illustrating
apologetic and evangelistic encounters) and memorable images
illustrating theological and philosophical points. The books, however,
were not models of stellar writing. Schaeffer's strengths lay in a
passion for God's truth, his apologetic prowess and the broad appeal of
his message and ministry.

Having converted as a young man,
Schaeffer began in the Fundamentalist tradition, but later transcended
its narrow sectarianism to serve the larger evangelical world along
with his wife Edith (also an author and lecturer). Although committed
to a Calvinist orthodoxy, Schaeffer's ministry affected a wide
cross-section of the evangelical world, particularly in the 1970s and
'80s, when he became a leading spokesman for conservative Protestantism
and even (against his wishes) something of a celebrity.

After becoming a Christian in college, I cut my apologetic teeth on The God Who is There,
which helped chart a course of ministry that I have not deviated from
since. Schaeffer argued that Christianity is objectively true and
rational and that it uniquely provides hope and meaning that secular
culture desperately needs. Christians should outthink the world for
Christ! As a philosophy major, I devoured Schaeffer's many books.
Although they didn't answer all my questions, they gave me a framework
for keeping both my intellectual integrity and my biblical orthodoxy.

The Oxford don

Unlike
Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis was a convert later in life and never left the
halls of the English academy for the pastorate or the mission field.
Lewis was an Anglican with no overt connections to American
Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism, despite the wide and deep effect his
writings have had on these communities. Lewis' project was to defend
"mere Christianity," or the doctrinal basics of the faith, against the
unbelief of the modern world. Rather than writing as an afterthought,
Lewis was always a writer through and through, as well as an expert in
literature. These literary gifts shine through his writings, which are
consistently lucid, filled with apt metaphors, similes, and examples,
and often arresting in their forcefulness.

Not only did he reach a large audience through his apologetic works such as Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain and The Abolition of Man, but Lewis also won the hearts of millions through his works of fiction such as The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and the Space Trilogy.
Reading Lewis' major apologetic works at the same time I was working
through the Schaeffer corpus further inspired me to develop a Christian
worldview in the face of philosophical rivals. Many evangelicals will
give the same testimony.

Lewis and Schaeffer attempted to
avoid partisan or sectarian disputes in setting forth and defending the
core claims of Christian orthodoxy. Their theological views differed in
several respects, as this volume brings out.

Schaeffer honed
his apologetic skills in debate with theological modernism (or
liberalism) and neoorthodoxy. Although he later critiqued
Fundamentalism for its legalism, social irrelevance and doctrinal
dogmatism (which often excluded authentic Christian spirituality),
Schaeffer had little patience with theologians who abandoned biblical
inerrancy or the historic doctrines of the Reformation (sola scriptura, sola fide,
and the priesthood of all believers). Although he was not a young-earth
creationist, Schaeffer rejected macroevolution as incompatible with a
literal reading of Genesis 1-11, as he argued in Genesis in Space and Time.

Lewis'
doctrinal core was considerably smaller than Schaeffer's. Although he
rejected naturalistic evolutionism (see "The Funeral of a Great Myth"
in Christian Reflections), he saw no need to give Genesis a
literal reading and thought that the Old Testament contained some
mythical materials. He never articulated the Reformed doctrine of
justification by faith alone, although he stressed the uniqueness of
Christ, the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and the need for
faith in salvation. He also believed in purgatory (which is obvious in The Great Divorce)
and in praying for the dead. These ideas rankle many conservative
Protestant readers, despite their affection for his deft apologetic
abilities in other areas.

Lewis and salvation

Surprisingly,
the authors of this book, who both teach at Asbury Theological Seminary
(an evangelical institution), appreciate Lewis in areas that many
evangelicals (such as myself) do not. They prefer Lewis over Schaeffer
in several key areas.

Rather than viewing salvation as a
one-time event rooted in saving faith in the finished work of Christ
(justification by faith alone through grace alone), Lewis presented
what the authors call a "transformational" model of salvation wherein
one is either moving toward heaven or hell at any given time. The
authors believe that his view of salvation is an entailment of Lewis'
(and their) view of the human will as free or self-determining.
(Philosophically, this is called libertarianism, which is not to be
confused with the anarchistic political philosophy of the same name.)
If so, a more Arminian view of human volition leads to a denial of a
Reformation doctrine of salvation as the legal imputation of Christ's
righteousness to sinful humans totally apart from their works.

Many
in the Arminian camp -- whether Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or
other -- who hold to justification by faith alone as an event to be
distinguished from sanctification (or becoming more Christ-like
experientially) would reject this conclusion. Moreover, one of the most
noteworthy evangelical Anglicans of our day, John Stott, thoroughly and
convincingly defends justification by faith alone in his magisterial
work, The Cross of Christ (InterVarsity Press).

The
authors also seem to imply that their view of free will leads to a
rejection of biblical inerrancy, since the biblical writers were not
completely controlled by God in the process of inspiration. In this,
they prefer Lewis to Schaeffer, who affirmed the sovereignty of God in
salvation and in the inspiration of Scripture. They accuse Schaeffer of
two fundamental errors of apologetics in this regard.

First,
they claim that a strong view of God's sovereignty is unjustifiable
philosophically and makes for bad apologetics, since it denies humans
real moral responsibility and makes God the author of evil.

Second,
they charge Schaeffer himself with not being theologically consistent
on the relationship of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. In
his apologetic writings, they write, Schaeffer argued for libertarian
freedom, opposing the naturalistic worldview of B.F. Skinner and others
who reduced humans to machines. Yet in his teachings on the Westminster
Confession of Faith (the controlling creed of his denomination),
Schaeffer affirmed God's absolute control over all events, including
human will.

Settling these matters requires a longer essay
than this one, so a few points must suffice. First, Schaeffer may not
have affirmed a libertarian view in his apologetic against naturalism.
To claim we are not machines totally controlled by impersonal factors
is not the same as arguing that the human will is autonomous of God's
sovereign plan for humanity. Schaeffer often claimed that humans are
not "programmed" by nature. They are moral agents. We live in an "open
system of cause and effect" (Christian theism) as opposed to a "closed
system of cause and effect" (naturalism). God may intervene
supernaturally, and humans have significant moral responsibility within
the order and plan of God's creation.

Schaeffer should be
granted some rhetorical slack in his apologetic writings. He is not
addressing trained theologians as much as modern people looking for
significance and meaning in a world that so often denies it to them on
the basis of bogus worldviews, whether atheistic or pantheism, both of
which reduce persons to components of the impersonal matrix of being.

When
Schaeffer argued that humans make significant choices, I believe his
emphasis was not on a radical self-determination (libertarianism), but
on the fact that we live in a personal universe. God, the supremely
personal being, has given persons moral agency and responsibility that
would be impossible within either naturalism (which reduces humans to
impersonal material factors) or pantheism (which reduces humans to
being manifestations of an impersonal deity).

It is
interesting and troubling that Burson and Walls do not appeal directly
to Scripture to support their views of libertarian free will, the
transformational view of salvation or the rejection of biblical
inerrancy. They argue this philosophically, but often fail to
adequately encounter philosophical arguments (outside of Schaeffer's
own writings) to the contrary. For instance, this book fails to engage
two other important InterVarsity books defending a Reformed view of
divine sovereignty and human responsibility: Paul Helm's The Providence of God and R.K. MacGregor Wright's No Place for Sovereignty.

21 Lessons for the 21st Century

The
authors do, however present an excellent exposition of both Lewis' and
Schaeffer's theologies, apologetic methods and historical settings.
They mine this material not merely for academic reasons, but to find
apologetic insights applicable to our times. Their final chapter, "21
Lessons for the 21st Century," brings together the combined strengths
of Lewis' and Schaeffer's apologetic efforts. While I cannot address
all 21 lessons, a few stand out for comment.

Apologists in
our postmodern times must emphasize objective reality and absolute
truth and not dissolve truth into relativism and subjectivism. Both
Lewis and Schaeffer rejected the notion that religion is a private or
merely cultural affair. Christianity is only as good as it is true and
rationally defensible. "While objective truth may not be the most
fruitful point of entry into contemporary apologetics, it cannot be
ignored or soft-pedaled in the long run without disastrous
consequences," the authors note. Amen to that.

Apologetics
also demands that we give "honest answers to honest questions" (as
Schaeffer put it) to the big questions of life. This requires serious
intellectual pursuit and honesty as Christians listen carefully to the
concerns, doubts and arguments of unbelievers. No superficial slogans
or trite one-liners will satisfy.

Christians must thus oppose
the spirit of the times, which revels in diversions, propaganda and
endless entertainment rather than informed and rational discourse.
Christians need to possess "a unified body of knowledge and meaning" in
challenging our fragmented, postmodern world. All inquiry and knowledge
must be brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

As
Christians defend their faith, they should employ a cumulative case
form of argument, as exemplified in different ways by Lewis and
Schaeffer. The apologist draws evidence from many sources -- science,
history, philosophy, psychology, even mythology (in Lewis' case) -- to
build a strong overall apologetic for Christian theism and against
rival worldviews.

The Christian worldview is not proven in
one or two strokes, but is rather verified by appealing to a wide and
compelling variety of converging arguments. Christianity is shown to be
the best explanation for origin and nature of the universe as well as
the human condition and the facts of history. Moreover, Christians must
be pastoral in their apologetic practices. We must care deeply
for the lost, not simply desire to defeat their arguments. The stakes
are too high for apologetic one-upmanship.

Despite my
complaints, if this book sparks a new generation of Christian thinkers
to engage the thought of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer for the
purpose of defending the faith given once to the saints (Jude 3), it
will have made a significant contribution indeed.